I have spent decades playing strategy games, and playing turn based strategy games in particular. Some get the balance right between pacing, tension, story, and pretty, and others don't. Ironically some which are remakes of originals lose something and their predecessors rate as a better game. What is lost is - in my opinion - what GA3 has lost. I've been waiting for a good sci-fi strategy so when GA3 popped up on the radar I thought - yes! Then I played it, and I was left feeling like I'd wasted my time. I of course understand that this is Beta, but if this is where Beta is then I'm afraid it's failed. 

Do I have advice on how to fix it? Maybe, I'm no game developer, I'm a scriptwriter for film and TV. But I want to work, so here goes: 

The focus of this game seems to be on the coding technology behind the game, and on areas that are of no significance whilst the elements that will help create an experience outside of mathematical calculus has been forgotten. That's the basis of my review here. If you disagree you can stop reading. 

1 - Interface

The interface is crude, and far to text driven. (I know the roll over windows are a work in progress). Why do I need to go to Govern to see my next income when a + or - or green or red value over the total I have would tell me the same information at a glance? Although I really enjoy the build column, that information isn't as important to me as recent galactic events. But more on that later. There are other points to the interface that could be displayed in smaller, visual holders rather than be hidden behind tabs. Only accountants like tabs. Players like instant response. 

2 - It's a race

Unless I missed it, GA3 like almost all other turn based games turns into a race. Technology is key here, as once the AI had a fleet bigger then mine, they camped my shipyards and politely prevented me from playing any game other than diplomacy. But diplomacy didn't offer a solution to the campers. When I heard about the idea of a council who would allow you to vote on galactic events I thought - finally a sci-fi game that actually realized governments know a lot of junk about one another, and here now, is a chance to politically dominate a game, rather than race to get lasers and rail-guns. This for me is where the Galactic Events comes into play. Asking me to vote on whether trade should get a boost, without me knowing how much trade the OTHER races is currently engaged in, is really just another math calculation on how much trade I want, blinding serving my own interests rather than the galaxies. To me a diplomatic solution should have a step before the vote is cast - the REAL diplomacy. Today's vote is on preventing integalactic tech exchange - OK... where are the Yor and their bribe to my civilization to vote against it? If I don't know how the vote will affect my other players, and only myself, it's not diplomacy. Furthermore - it might have been a hidden math equation - but each time I voted I got no sense of how my vote was influencing the other powers. Was I voting positively - and did it have an effect on the races it favoured? If so, did they show some kind of begrudging respect over time? If they did, then I wasn't able to find it on the various screens. To me - if I vote on something, I want to get feedback from my opponents, and have it mean something. 

Polling is another option that could be a credit sink for the players economy but also provide a tension point, and be a great way to get some idea of galactic standing. A poll could be launched to get a sense of what the other powers think of you. Not in terms of 'they are preparing for war' but in terms of reception. They are cold towards you, they are warm and welcoming. In other words a pseudo-psychological response (using buckets of maths I'm sure to work out). But the response will let me gauge how I am doing within the game from that perspective. Having a race that I vote with almost all the time suddenly declare war does not inspire my vengeance, if makes me wonder what the point is of the whole diplomatic link is. And this is a problem that a lot of strategy games have. 

To alter the diplomacy of the game to take the above into account, or an idea of the above, would seem to me to work within the program. But what it would do is give me hope that if I'm not winning the race technologically, or in a land-grab scramble - I might still work my way into the diplomatic ranks. 

3 - Scientific fact...

Science is another area where I feel consequences to my actions would make for a more thrilling game. Here I have to say that the vast array of tech available is great. The tech itself isn't. I didn't find a quick display of the advantage some tech would give me versus others. Kinetic weapons work better against... shields? I understand that I'm an idiot when it comes to games that require me to put 1+1 together, but if I mouse over a tech, at a glance I should know it's full purpose for being in the game. It was interesting that there was no tech-tree. Just hidden tech after tech after tech with no end in sight. The Age progress bar means nothing, and I passed into new ages not knowing why or how, or of the benefit or consequence thereof. It was just a bar that filled up. This again comes back to interface - if it doesn't enhance my experience of tension, excitement, anticipation, or revelation what is the point? It's just another text box of math. So the science stuff is cool, and I like that you have an element of unknown but again - it's a race for weapons, for hull size, and then for other stuff. In my last game I ignored planetary development research and only focused on weapons and engineering. I won without breaking a sweat. 

Now science is not an isolated arena. If a government on Earth today were to begin working on weapons of mass destruction - the rest of the world would politely point theirs at them and tell them to stop. On the other hand, a government who develops new agricultural methods is hailed as a green peace loving nation. My own government can't rule a country but globally are seen as the greatest architects for peace and reconciliation ever. In other words - science should influence Diplomacy. And I should be warned as a player - if the other nations discover you're building improved kinetic weapons - this will have a negative impact on your next vote when asking for tech sharing, or for something where having an arsenal of weapons might be useful. 

4 - Ship designer or galactic overlord, but not both

What an awesome idea, for a great waste of time. This is a turn based strategy game, but the micromanagement of starships is now a thing. Don't get me wrong, I'm an artist so I loved the idea of custom designing my own ships... but then realized that I'm not playing starship simulator 2015. And once I'd researched the massive array of ships - which need to be categorized please guys - support, assault, exploration or whatever to prevent me having to scroll through endless text to find the ship I want - I realized that my own little custom ships didn't prove me with any real advantage outside of the micro environment which space combat isn't about. This leads me to consistency - why can I micromanage my ship design but then nothing else? 

5 - Consistent graphics

In script-writing we have a golden rule - be consistent. Don't change a character half way through. What GA3 has done is given me a mix of graphics. This could be because it's beta, but I somehow suspect it isn't. The planet graphics remind me of a 1990's game called SW: Rebellion. The galactic map has beautiful glowing nebula, tiny swirling motes of light on strat resources (which I don't see a point to except to make me build useless starbases) and the map looks good (PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF THE NOODLE GOD ALLOW FOR ASWD NAVIGATION ON THE MAP). But the planet renderings for building location are beyond basic, cartoonish, and dull. 

The rendering of the aliens is inconsistent too. Here are the Yor you look like amazing killer robots, here are the whatever, who look amazingly photo-realistic, here are the Drengen - who are space orks, and look like they've been designed by them, and here are the humans, caricatures of real humans. This doesn't make sense. I'd admit graphics are a thing for me. But keep them consistent. 

6 - Musical flavour

How beautiful and wonderful it is. For a game that cost me $50 I expect in the future to have music for each of the races. And although there has been a great attempt to make the ships, bases, and aliens look different, the style of writing chosen for them, for their diplomatic responses is not. It's a weak attempt to make the orks sound brutish, but really I didn't get a sense of difference. When playing a race, apart from the skin, I didn't get a sense of this is different. It is possible, there are countless games, going all the way back to ST: Birth of the Federation who got racial distinction and atmosphere perfectly. 

7 - The written worden

There are times where the text is formal, grand, and scientific. There are times when I feel as if I've stumbled into a coffee shop and met a bunch of 15 year olds. Formal and informal text proliferate. It doesn't make sense. The 'Huh' response before the universal translator is developed (WHICH PLAYS NO PART IN THE DIPLOMACY COUNCIL VOTING) seems foolish.

The robot helper who is the same for all races, informs us of fairly useless information when we finish researching something, and does so in a laxidasical fashion. It would be better, it would help me anticipate the game turns more if it promised of future tech, in a meaningful way.

There are spelling issues, or missing words, but hey, that's to be expected. But again, it feels like there is no plan, no desire to make it feel personal, to create atmosphere, or push tension. It's just text because we need to fill in the math boxes with something. 

8 - WTF Opening

What does the opening, apart from pretty graphics have to do with anything? There is a crusade coming? It doesn't speak about diplomacy, it doesn't talk to science revolutions, and it doesn't give me as a player a sense of what it's all about. It's a mechanical opening. Strategy games very seldom have a narrative, but they does provide for one. TW:Rome has very little narrative except you are trying to turn everyone Roman, or Gaulish etc. You have a sense of purpose. And you see your family grow and die, and flourish and fail. Other games have similiar things, or micro-stories about a research arm that could lead to greater things. There is a sense of progression. GA3 is a sense of race to the end, with zero narrative. This is fixed simply with small narrative texts that have a clear link and progression. But it does require someone to plan out those stories, and to focus on bringing tension and story to the game, and I'm not sure I get a sense that that is what is happening.

In conclusion I think that GA3 has all the making of a really awesome, truly inspiring galactic game, but falls short when it comes to player experience because the focus has been on technical wizardry that only a few will appreciate and not on player expectation and emotional investment. In my opinion if something isn't done to create a sense of emotional connection between me the player and the game then this is just another bland strategy game that pales in comparison to it's present day competition, and falls very short of the classic benchmarks set by games in the early 2000's. 

If any of the above already exists in the game and I haven't seen it, or it's hidden behind some text box tab, then it simple means it isn't obvious enough to the casual player, which is ultimately where the money comes from.